Talk:Poverty in Colombia

Neutrality in this article
I'm sorry for disputing this but as a colombia, from economic strata level 4, I find ridiculous that skin color can also determine your social and economical status, as well as other comentaries in this article. Please revise it in order to neutralize some of the ideas and also, put citations of them if there is an investigation where it can be proved that: 1. skin color can determine your social and economical status in Colombia (this country already counts with a great amount of diversity, also present in higher strata levels, so I wish to see from where this data comes from) 2. Colombia's culture has suffered from this strata leveling (it is true that private channels create their programming depending on the social strata but it is true that most colombians, from trata level 2 to 6 own a TV and levels 3-5 are those who spend most time watching TV, specially on prime time (7-9pm), but culture hasn't been affected by this since Colombia still has a rich cultural agenda dedicated to everyone, regardingless social status. Please read Colombia's main article and read the whole culture section). 3. I know that who wrote this article is highly concerned with Colombia's level of poverty but I do ask to revise it's neutrality and also to revise that in the last 2 years, other latinamerican countries, such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil and Bolivia have also similar or worse situations than Colombia and they are not due to an armed conflict such as Colombia. Please include in the article, the UN's poverty level of Colombia (if it exists) regarding other countries in latinamerica.

Thank you 131.175.12.86 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Skin color data has been sourced. Please check reference list. Regarding the role of media. Please note that radio stations such as Radioacktiva only generate content such as visiting high schools, from exclusive academic centers of Colombia (Gimansio Moderno, Mary Mount, etc.). Radio Recuerdos is known to be liked or listened to in popular places such as Southern Bogota. In particular, it could be said that the media carefully interacts with the affluent when it comes down to the creating of content. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding #3, offering benchmarks shouldn't be done to reduce the impact of the article, therefore I also suggest that if other latin american countries are included to show similar or worse situations, in name of neutrality examples of better off states are shown. Armed conflict has been greatly reduced in its impact on economy, in my opinion, related to inequity, corruption and reduced independance of institutions against the executive power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.22.159 (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Article should be rewritten, partially or entirely
The article, in its current form, needs to be heavily edited if not erased and restarted from the beginning. Some of the ongoing issues are:


 * -Unclear or missing citations. This is a serious obstacle for verification, even among those of us who know Spanish.
 * -Original research. Plenty of information is not contained in the references and appears to be the personal "deductions" of an editor.
 * -Exceptional claims without exceptional support. Just one link is not enough support for everything.
 * -Unencyclopedic tone. Opinions shouldn't be presented as facts.
 * -Percentages without dates. Confusing and tends to prevent verification.

I would rewrite it myself, given enough time and effort, but I would hope that other interested editors are able to see the need to improve an article dealing with such a serious matter in order to fully comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. As it stands, the article is severely lacking. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)